清末 新政期 天津商曾의 活動과 그 性格

문명기(Moon, Myung-Ki) 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2001 역사문화연구 Vol.15 No.-

This article aims to revIew the features. especially the diffrences which were reflected in the two regions' autonomy movement under the Japanese rule. The self-government movement of the two regions began about the same time . maybe influenced by the changes in the world politics and prompted by the Koean People's Liberation Movement occurred in 1919. but the autonomy theory and activities of each region differed significantly. In Korea. the ultimate goal of the resistance was 'liberation'. that is the establishment of an independent nation-state freefrom J apanese influence . On the contrary. Taiwanese did not 'aim high '. seemingly just satisfied with the realization of autonomy. The difference encourages students of history to dig into the historical backgrounds for these phenamena. Then. why? One of the main causes lies in the characteristics of the two regions' ruling elites before colonization. In Korea, the civil examination system prevailed almost all the sectors of the society throughout the Cho-sun dynasty(1392-1910), while the same system in Taiwan had at most a slight influence on society or ruling class only since 19th century. Therefore, shift of state power from each region to Japanese Imperialism had quite different effect on respective region. Korean ruling class might have been shocked by the possibility of the loss of opportunity for 'the ladder of success', while Taiwanese ruling class might have no reson to find out the cause for resistance, because they have relied on other ways for their economic and social status(military power, commerce, etc.). Their cultural orientation also sharply differed. Korean ruling class was educated and trained to conduct on the basis of the Neo-Confucianism, and the Neo-Confucianism they embraced included the contempt for the 'barbarians'(華夷觀念). Combined with traditional diplomacy concept(交隣) in which Cho-sun dynasty did not approve Japan as an equal counterpart, this belief system provided the ruling class for raison detre of the resistance. But in Taiwan, although they were more or less influenced by NeoConfucianism, the ruli ng class were lack of ideological weapons for resistance. That explains why many Korean ruling class became the leader of resistance movement, while Taiwanese counterpart were not so eager to resist. There are one more historical factor that could explain the difference. Taiwan had not been a state itself. but a part of 'Middle Kingdom' . and Taiwanese had a state to rely on even when they became the subject of 'Japanese empire'. closely relating Taiwan's fate to that of China. which unabled Taiwanese to think they should 'help themselves'. This factor. which I call 'China Factor'. also affected the process. albeit not the result. of Taiwanese and Korean resistance movement. and I think it has some' dispersing' (the energy of resistance) effects on the Taiwanese part.

대만 · 조선총독부의 초기 재정 비교연구 : '식민제국' 일본의 식민지 통치역량과 관련하여

文明基(Moon Myung-ki) 중국근현대사학회 2009 중국근현대사연구 Vol.44 No.-

Korea and Taiwan has both experienced the rule of Japanese Imperialism, but their attitude on the Japanese Occupation since 1945 differed. This article tries to explain one of the main causes for the difference from the financial point of view. During the occupation, Taiwan Sotokufu successfully reached the goal of financial independence earlier than expected, whereas Chosen Sotokufu never succeeded in that goal except for one year(1919). What made this difference occurred? There are a lot of reasons, but this difference most importantly resulted from the difference of the state-society relationship of the two societies, and the difference also was drived from the size of the colony itself. Colonial period Chosen was larger than Taiwan 6 times in area, and 3~4 times in population, and Japanese central government supported Taiwan Sotokufu financially enough to reorganize taiwan society according to its will and expectation, successfully suppress Taiwan society's resistance. But In Korea, Chosen Sotokufu could not expect enough financial support from the central government because of the central government's limited financial ability, and in result Chosen Sotokufu could not extract revenues from Korean society needed to construct huge scale infrastructure which could be helpful to govern Korean society. I think that is the main reason the Sotokufu system of Taiwan fairly succeeded, whereas the Sotokufu system of Korea proved to be a general failure. And this point might explain part of the reasons Korean Society sustained so strong Anti-Japanese Attitude since 1945. Tatao Yanaihara, The famous economist and a clearheaded observer on colonial policy, also admitted that direct governorship of Japan (like Sotokufu system) could not be said to be successful at least in Korea. And I think the reason Japanese Imperialism has persisted on applying direct governorship to Korea still need to be answered.

臺灣事件(1874) 이후 淸朝의 臺灣 경영과 建省方案의 형성

文明基(Moon Myung-Ki) 역사학회 2007 역사학보 Vol.0 No.194

Many scholars have insisted that since Taiwan Incident the Qing court made every effort to secure Taiwan Island with great energy and success. But they could not explain why the Qing court spent more than 10 years since 1874 deciding to establish Taiwan Province right after Sino-French War. This article claims that the effort made by Qing court was not based on such a stable basis and it confronted various difficulties, such as distribution of financial resources and disputes among governor(or governor-general) level officials on their jurisdictions. More than anything else, The main reason subsequent measures after Taiwan Incident was delayed, was the fact that Qing court had 'another frontier', that is Xinjiang(新疆), to defend and the court could not afford to secure both maritime defense(海防) and frontier defense(陸防). The court had to make up priority on national defense mainly because of their lack of financial capability, and their choice was not maritime regions, but frontier regions. This fact explains why various measures taken for crisis management on Taiwan Island was so ineffective. Therefore, we should be aware that in spite of the importance of defending Taiwan, when it was caculated from strategic viewpoint on entire empire, Taiwan was not top priority. The importance of the decision to establish Taiwan Province, made on November 1885, however, should not be underestimated. The decision provided Taiwan an opportunity to reform the entire Taiwanese society, including Development of Aborigine Land(番地開發) and Land Tax Reform(地稅改革). Taiwan Province was called 'the most advanced province in China' or 'the model province'(模範省) before Japanese rule began, and that was the result of the highly political decision by Qing court to establish province, combined with the first governor Liu Ming-chuan's great endeavor to modernize Taiwan.

일제하 대만,조선 총독부 세입의 추이와 구조 -조세수입과 조세부담을 중심으로-

문명기 ( Myung Ki Moon ) 수선사학회 2016 史林 Vol.0 No.56

As a result of a comparative study on Government-Generals’ annual revenues in Korea and Taiwan under Japanese occupation, I found some features as follows: First, the fact that tax revenue and government enterprise revenue occupied overwhelming portion in overall annual revenue was already verified in numerous studies years ago. But by observing annual revenue in detail focusing on substantial tax revenue and monopoly net profit, we could show the difference between finance of Taiwan Sotokufu and that of Chosen Sotokufu. In other words, the difference in the result of monopoly enterprise in the two region resulted in sharp contrast between “abundant” Taiwan finance and “feeble” Chosen finance. Second, by observing the tax burden in the two region relating it into GDE(General Domestic Expenditure, that is productivity), we came to have a clue to the question: why Taiwanese people were able to bear relatively higher tax burden, whereas Korean people have been suffering from relatively lower tax burden? To sum up, Taiwanese finance under Japanese occupation showed the structure of high cost and high efficiency in both the annual revenue and annual expenditure. But we are not sure whether this financial model which operated effectively in Taiwan also did so in Colonial Korea. According to what we have seen in this article, Colonial Korea’s cost, efficiency and economic growth was lower than those of Colonial Taiwan, Colonial Korea’s exploitation was higher than that of Colonial Taiwan. This financial differences may have affected the difference in the historical memory of the two peoples on colonial period since 1945.

<양안경제협력기조협의>(ECFA)를 통해 본 양안관계의 역사적 전망

문명기 ( Myung Ki Moon ) 한양대학교 동아시아문화연구소 (구 한양대학교 한국학연구소) 2012 동아시아 문화연구 Vol.51 No.-

2010년 6월 양안 간에 체결된 <양안경제협력기조협의(兩岸經濟協力基調協議)>(이하 ECFA로 칭함)는 양안 관계의 역사에 있어서 중요한 의미를 가진다. 특히 ECFA의 결과 ``양안공동시장``이 형성될 것으로 예상되는 가운데, 이러한 경제적 변화가 모종의 정치적 변화로까지 연결될 것인지가 학문적·현실적 관심사로 떠오르고 있다. 본고는 기존의 ECFA 및 양안관계 관련 연구에 1) 역사적 시각이 결여되어 있다는 점, 그리고 2) 향후의 양안관계의 전망에 있어서 (통일 또는 독립의) 택일적 관점을 선택하는 경향이 강하다는 점에 착안하여, 두 가지 한계를 넘어서고자 하는 시도이다. 필자의 초보적 관찰의 결과, ECFA는 장기간 경제적 하향세에 접어든 대만경제의 돌파구를 마련한다는 대만의 입장과 대만에 대한 경제적 혜택 제공을 통해 정치적 영향력을 확대하고자 하는 대륙의 입장이 맞아떨어진 결과 체결되었음을 알 수 있었다. 또한 야당인 민진 당의 끈질긴 ECFA 반대운동에도 불구하고 ECFA가 결국 체결된 것은, 양안 경제교류의 ``내재적 동력``과 대만경제의 제한된 선택지로 인한 ``경제적 요인``에 좌우된 바 크며, 이러한 경제부문에서의 양안의 상호의 존 관계는 역사적으로 보아 ``익숙한 과거``로의 회귀일 가능성이 크다는 점을 확인할 수 있었다. 이러한 분석을 토대로 하여 ⓐ 마잉주정부의 ``삼불정책`` ⓑ 미국정부의 현상유지 방침 ⓒ 정치주권과 경제주권을 사실상 향유해온 대만사회의 역사적 경험 ⓓ 비교적 굳건하게 뿌리내린 ``대만 정체성``과 ⓔ 대륙에 대한 대만사회의 뿌리 깊은 불신과 공포 등으로 미루어 보아, 양안관계는 통일이나 분립이 아닌, ``부통부독(不統不獨)``의 현상의 장기간의 유지가 될 것으로 전망한다. ECFA, signed between China and Taiwan in June, 2010, has significant meaning in the history of Cross-Straits Relations. Especially many scholars have a lot of interests on if some economic changes stimulated by ECFA, like ``Cross-Straits Common Market``, will lead to political changes including re-unification, this article aims to overcome two limitations of existing scholarship, which lacks some historical perspectives and which tend to choose between the two options, like re-unification or split, ECFA is a product of combination of Taiwan`s strategy to find out some economic breakthrough and China`s strategy to enhance political influences on Taiwan by way of economic leverage. And in spite of steadfast anti-ECFA movement led by DPP, ECFA was realized. It is because of ``internal potential`` formed between Cross-Straits and limited choices of Taiwan economy. And contemporary inter-reliance between Cross-Straits could be a repetition of ``familiar past`` historically. Analysis above indicates that Cross-Straits relations in post-ECFA period could be a long-term status quo, on several grounds like ⓐ Ma Ying-jiu Administration`s Three-No Policy, ⓑ Obama Administration`s status quo strategy on Cross-Straits Relations ⓒ Taiwan`s historical experiences in which enjoyed long-term de facto political and economic sovereignty ⓓ well-rooted ``Taiwan Identity`` and ⓔ Taiwan society`s deep-rooted mistrust and sense of fear against China.

한국화교사 연구의 회고와 전망: - 2010년 이후의 연구성과를 중심으로 -

문명기(Myung-ki, Moon) 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2018 역사문화연구 Vol.68 No.-

이 논문은, (일부의 일본학계 연구 성과도 포함하되) 주로 2010년 이후에 출간된 한국화교사 연구 성과를 소개하고 해당 연구의 공헌과 문제점을 함께 정리하고자 했다. 분석을 통하여 아래의 세 가지 측면을 집중적으로 부각시켰다. ① (개항기·식민지시대의 경우) 한국경제사에서의 화교경제의 위상을 실제 이상으로 강조하는 경향이 있고, ② (개항기와 해방 이후의 경우) 화교경제의 성쇠에 대한 정치권력(=청나라나 한국정부의 영향력)의 영향력을 과도하게 강조하 는 경향도 없지 않으며, ③ 한국화교의 목소리에만 의지하여 (특히 해방 이후의)한국화교사를 재구성할 경우, 한국사회라는 주류집단과 화교사회라는 소수자집단 간의 관계와 그 변모를 균형 있게 이해하기 곤란하다는 점 등이 그것이다. 향후의 과제로서는, ① (동남아시아 화교 등과의) 비교사적 접근의 보다 적극적인 활용, ② 시대별·분야별로 균형을 맞추는 작업의 필요성, ③ 한국화교의 직업 분석도 보다 다양하게 접근할 필요가 있으며, 특히 그동안 분석 대상이 되지 못했던 한의사나 약사 등의 직업군에 대한 관심이 필요하며, ④ (인천 지역에 비해 연구가 미진한) 서울 지역의 화교사에 대한 연구가 보다 강화될 필요가 있다는 점 등을 지적했다. 이러한 비판적 회고와 향후의 과제에 대한 제시는, 그간의 한국화교사 연구의 진전을 긍정적으로 평가함과 동시에, 그동안의 연구에서 보이는 일정한 편향을 수정하여 보다 균형 잡힌 한국화교사 연구를 수행하기 위한 제언이라는 의미를 가진다고 판단된다. In this article, I tried to introduce books and articles on the history of Chinese overseas in Korea(hereafter Korean Huaqiao) which were published since 2010 in Korea(including a couple of books published in Japan) and review them from a critical viewpoint. Throughout some analyses, I could bring three points into further focus. First, There had been a tendency to overemphasize the status of Korean Huaqiao economy in Korean Modern economic history. Second, (Especially in open port period and colonial period) there had been a tendency to overemphasize the influence of political power on the ups and downs of Korean Huqiao economy. And third, when we listen only to the voice of Korean Huaqiao, it becomes very difficult to make some balanced arguments on the relationship between mainstream of Korean society and minority groups like Korean Huaqiao. As for future agenda on Korean Huaqiao, I suggested four tasks. First, we need to utilize comparative approaches more aggressively. Second, we need to balance each detailed sphere(like Huqiao economy, Huqiao politics, etc.) not to produce biased images on the history of Korean Huaqiao. Third is as for analysis of job composition of Korean Huaqiao. For example, Oriental doctors or pharmacist, which had been the object of envy among Korean Huaqiao since 1945, had not been analyzed comprehensively. And finally, we need to strengthen the study of Korean Huaqiao in Seoul. Contrast to Korean Huaqiao in Incheon, Korean Huaqiao in Seoul, always the biggest majority of Korean Huaqiao population, had not got appropriate attention. I hope that my critical review and some suggestions will help to correct some possible biases in Korean Huaqiao studies and to conduct more balanced and productive studies.

식민지시대 대만에 있어서의 통계시스템의 정착과 그 역사적 조건

문명기(Moon, Myung-ki) 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2014 역사문화연구 Vol.50 No.-

본고는 일본의 식민지 중 하나일 뿐만 아니라 이후 일본 식민통치의 모델로도 기능했던 대만에 대한 통치와 통계의 상호연관성을 구체적으로 살펴봄으로써, 식민제국 일본의 식민지 통치의 실상에 좀 더 다가가고자 했다. 특히 조선과 달리 일본의 대만 통치에 관해서는 성공을 강조하는 경우가 유독 많은데, 본고는 대만통치 성공의 원인의 하나를 통계시스템의 정착 및 확산에서 찾아보고자 했다. 이를 위해 1) 총독부관료의 통계와 관련된 인식과 실천의 문제, 2) 통계시스템의 정착과 지방행정 개편과의 관련, 3) 통계시스템이 실제로 활용된 사례로서의 臨時臺灣戶口調査(1905년)와 토지조사사업의 상호 연관성에 초점을 맞추어 분석했다. 그 결과 대만에 있어서의 근대적 통계시스템의 도입과 정착에는 과학적 조사와 연구를 통한 '문명'의 이식을 열망한 고토 심페이 등 식민지관료의 열정이 중요한 배경을 이루고 있었다는 점, 통치 초기부터 비교적 정확한 통계자료를 양산하는 데는 통계시스템 자체의 정비 못지않게 정확한 통계 산출을 강제할 수 있는(주로 경찰력을 중심으로 한) 지방행정체제의 정비, 특히 기층 주민조직의 정비가 큰 역할을 했다는 점, 그리고 통치 초기의 토지조사사업과 임시대만호구조사 등의 각종 조사사업은 완성도 높은 통계시스템과 통계자료 생산의 중요한 계기가 되었다는 점 등을 확인했다. 다만 '작은 메이지유신'이라 불릴 만큼 대만 통치에서 거둔 식민제국 일본의 '성취'는 그 과정에서 대만 주민을 철저히 타자화하는 '이성의 독재'이자 '문명의 虐政'의 결과라는 점, 그리고 식민지배 과정에서 훼손된 주체성을 회복하려는 노력이 식민지시대 이래 현재까지 진행되어온 조선의 사례와 분명한 대조를 이룬다는 점도 동시에 고려할 필요가 있다. This article aims to approach the historical reality in more practical way by pursuing the interrelationship between colonial government and the statistics in colonial period. Unlike Korea under Japanese rule, government of Taiwan by Japanese Colonial Empire is evaluated to have been successful, therefore this article tries to explore the historical causes of that phenomenon, especially by describing the reality of establishment and spread of statistics system. For this purpose, I focused on three points: 1) the colonial officials' theories and practices on governing Taiwan 2) settlement of the statistics system and its relation to the reform of local administration and 3) the relationship between census in 1905 and land survey. As a result, I found: 1) behind the successful establishment and spread of statistics system lies colonial officials' passion and interest in the statistics and scientific research 2) reform of local administration(especially reform of police system) was more important than the statistics system itself in producing accurate statistic materials and 3) land survey and census in 1905 set the foundation for the more complete statistics system. But the achievements of Japanese colonial government in Taiwan was paid high price, especially in that the Japanese marginalized Taiwan People. We can call japanese' rule of Taiwan 'rational dictatorship' or 'civilizational tyranny', and this is sharply contrasted with the case of colonial experience of Korea, which has tried strenuously to revive the subjectivity damaged by the Japanese colonial rule.

식민지 ‘문명화’의 격차와 그 함의

문명기(Moon, Myung-ki) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2013 한국학연구 Vol.46 No.-

본고는 식민지 대만과 조선의 의료 인프라와 의료 서비스의 비교를 통해 두 지역의 ‘식민지근대’의 존재양태를 비교 검토함으로써 아래의 점을 밝히고자 했다. 첫째, 대만과 조선의 의료체계 구축을 통해 거두고자 했던 통치효과(=문명화를 통한 식민지 주민의 순치)는 대단히 유사했지만, 의료 인프라의 규모와 의료 서비스의 향유라는 점에서는 큰 차이를 보였다. 둘째, 두 지역의 의료 서비스는 질량 모두에서 현저한 차이를 드러내었고, 이는 궁극적으로 두 식민지권력의 재원조달능력에 있어서의 차이를 반영한다. 셋째, 두 지역 사립병원 증감의 추이와 그 원인의 분석을 통해 두 지역 의료체계의 격차는 두 지역의 경제적 격차에 의해서도 초래되었다. 1945년 이후 두 지역에서의 식민지 의료 현실에 대한 상이한 평가는, 1945년 이후 민족주의 담론에 근거한 ‘왜곡된 기억’의 결과만은 아닌, 식민지시대의 상이한 의료 현실 그 자체와 연관되어 있다. 그리고 대만에 비해 크게 뒤쳐진 식민지 조선의 의료위생 현실은, 간접적으로나마 식민지 경제의 발전 수준의 문제, 그리고 (의료적 규율을 행사할 ‘장’ 자체가 결핍되었다는 면에서) 규율권력의 작동 범위의 문제를 재고할 필요가 있음을 말해준다. This article tries to reveal different characters of Colonial Modernity in Taiwan and Korea under Japanese rule, through comparing Quantity and Quality of Medical Infrastructure and Medical Services, Public Hospital. My arguments are as follows: First, the rulers’ intention of domestication of colonial subjects by way of establishment of Medical Systems were very similar, but scale of Medical Infrastructure and enjoyment of Medical Services quite differed. Second, Medical Services in Taiwan was far better than those of Korea, and it reflects the difference of fiscal ability of the two colonial powers. Finally, the gap resulted from the different level of economic development between the two areas. All of these analyses indicates that Koreans’ underestimating the medical achievement by Japanese rulers since 1945 reflects poor medical environment before 1945 and indirectly indicates that we should reevaluate the issue of colonial economic development and the real range of disciplinary powers which operated in colonial Korea.

中日戰爭 初期(1937-39) 汪精衛派의 和平運動과 和平理論

文明基(Moon Myung-Ki) 동양사학회 2000 東洋史學硏究 Vol.71 No.-

사학부(史學部) : 청말 신강의 건성(1884)과 재정 -대만 건성(1885)과의 비교를 겸하여

문명기 ( Myung Ki Moon ) 한국중국학회 2011 中國學報 Vol.63 No.-

Emperor Qianlong defeated Zunghar in 1759 and named the area ``Xinjiang``(Newly Acquired Territory). After conquest, Qing state took quarantine strategy, in which Han people, Manchurians and Uighurs were segregated from one another(ex. intermarriage, separate residence). A series of internal disorder and territorial crisis since 1860s prompted Qing state to build Xinjiang Province. But Situation was quite different from Taiwan. Revenue potential was extremely meager and Xinjiang was totally dependent on financial support by central govt. since 1885 the financial structure had not changed at all. If we see the revenue and expenditure of Xinjiang since 1885, we can easily draw out two features: So called direct rule was strictly confined to military control, and still dependent on central govt heavily. But there was room for revenue increase. As you see the size of land in Xinjiang, we can find a striking imbalance between the size of land and amount of land tax. Then why couldn``t the provincial govt expand revenue potential? Qing state were worried about the possibility of social disorder in case they adopted an aggressive financial policy, so they decided not to encroach on economic resources of Uighur elites(Beg), who were leaders of the biggest ethnic group in Xinjiang. As a result, the Begs` remained untaxed, and the provincial govt failed to expand revenue potential. After the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, financial support by central govt was interrupted and a lot of policies were canceled or suspended.